Next Article in Journal
Life Cycle Assessment of High-Performance Railway Infrastructure, Analysis of Superstructures in Tunnels and on Open Tracks
Previous Article in Journal
Desalination of Saline Irrigation Water Using Hydrophobic, Metal–Polymer Hydrogels
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097066
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enset Production System Diversity across the Southern Ethiopian Highlands

by
Guy Blomme
1,*,
Elizabeth Kearsley
2,
Sisay Buta
3,
Alemayehu Chala
3,
Ruhama Kebede
4,
Temesgen Addis
5 and
Zerihun Yemataw
6
1
The Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, c/o ILRI, Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 5689, Ethiopia
2
BlueGreen, 9120 Melsele, Belgium
3
College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa P.O. Box 5, Ethiopia
4
Aklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 1176, Ethiopia
5
E-Nema, Company for Biotechnology and Biological Plant Protection, 24223 Schwentinental, Germany
6
Southern Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Hawassa P.O. Box 06, Ethiopia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7066; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097066
Submission received: 16 March 2023 / Revised: 15 April 2023 / Accepted: 21 April 2023 / Published: 23 April 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enset is a staple crop of the southern Ethiopian highlands. Small-holder farmers cultivate enset as part of mixed subsistence farming systems, in which enset provides substantial food security services. While its cultivation is unique to this region, enset production systems take on many forms, varying with environmental and agronomic conditions, crop diversity and (co-)staples produced, the importance of enset for the household, and socio-economic and cultural differences. Through extensive interviews with 375 households covering 20 communities, along an altitudinal range of 1500 to 3000 masl across the main enset-producing belt, the diversity in enset production systems was assessed. We show that the size of enset-producing land holdings and the overall cultivated farmland decreased with altitude. The economic status of households however drives the proportion of land allocated to enset, with relatively more land (45%) allocated to the cultivation of enset in poorer households compared to medium (38%) and to richer (23%) households. The food crop diversity, with an average of 6.4 different food crop species on a farm (ranging from 2 to 15 crops), did not vary with the wealth status of the households or with altitude. Enset-derived food items were a main component of multiple daily meals for most households, complemented with other crops produced on the farm. Supplemental food purchases mainly included meat and bread products, although the purchasing power of enset-growing households is predominantly low. The co-staples grown varied with altitude, according to crop productive cultivation boundaries. Maize was an important co-staple observed across the entire investigated altitudinal range. At the mid to upper altitudes, wheat and barley often supplemented or substituted maize as the main cereal crop, while at the mid to lower altitudes, teff was produced in addition to maize. Coffee was the main cash crop grown up to altitudes of 2300 m. Root and tuber crops, and legumes had a more moderate importance in these systems. At lower altitudes, yam, sweet potato and taro were the main roots and tubers produced, which shifted to Irish potatoes at the mid to high altitudes. The importance of beans was higher in several high-altitude kebeles. The food crop diversity, combined with livestock rearing are key for the self-reliance of the small-holder subsistence farms. The need for increased enset cultivation was highlighted by the farmers to ensure food availability and food security with population growth. On the other hand, enset cultivation was mainly threatened by Xanthomonas wilt.

1. Introduction

Enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman) is a herbaceous, perennial, monocarpic plant, belonging to the family Musaceae. Morphologically, enset resembles the banana plant (Musa spp.) although it is not cultivated for its fruits, but for its underground corm and pseudostem base which are mainly processed into starchy food products [1]. The cultivation of enset only occurs in the south and south-western highlands of Ethiopia where it is a staple food for ~24 million people (~20% of the Ethiopian population; [1,2]). In these regions, enset serves as a major food security crop, a status achieved through a combination of reliable availability, environmental resilience and a limited requirement for off-farm resources [3,4,5,6,7]. Accordingly, enset can grow over a relatively wide range of agro-ecological conditions and shows tolerance for several environmental stresses, including periods of drought and inundation, and can cope with short periods of frost [8,9,10]. Farms also maintain a high diversity of enset landraces presenting a variety of traits and environmental tolerances, reinforcing the resilience of the crop [6,11]. Enset’s reliable availability for food stems from a prolonged potential harvesting period. While the crop is preferably harvested at the flowering stage (5–8 years old plants) when biomass accumulation in the corm and pseudostem is at its highest level, the crop can be harvested and used throughout the year and at any growth stage over several years depending on household needs [12]. Its derived fermented food products can furthermore be stored for long periods [7,13]. Fermented food products include kocho, a fermented flatbread produced from the enset corm and pseudostem starch, and bulla, a premium starch collected during enset processing for kocho, thereafter rehydrated from concentrate and prepared as pancake or porridge. Enset can also be consumed without fermentation, by boiling corm pieces which are eaten like potato (amicho).
The enset-based farming systems in the Ethiopian highlands are characterized by a high crop diversity, and the holding of livestock [2,14]. Farmers grow a selection of co-staples and a variety of annual crops to sustain their dietary needs, and often integrate cash crops [4,12,15]. As such, these farms are a form of mixed subsistence farming systems, providing a substantial level of self-reliance and a sustainable livelihood for these communities. The realization of sustainable subsistence systems centred around the cultivation of enset varies substantially throughout the highlands, and different enset production systems have been categorized based on environmental, agronomic and cultural criteria, the level of importance of enset for the household and the type of (co-)staples produced [2,5,16]. For example, Brandt et al. [2] suggested four sub-systems of enset cultivation. In one, enset is the main staple crop and an important role is attributed to livestock. In the three other sub-systems, enset serves a lesser role as a co-staple, while other staple crops, generally cereals, roots and tubers, vary in their importance. Further variability is often identified within agronomic sub-systems. For example, Abebe [16] reported local variability of the dominant enset–coffee-based systems of the Sidama region of south-central Ethiopia. The dependence on the crops enset, coffee, maize, sweet potato, pineapple or khat defined the variability, and was shown to be driven by environmental conditions and the access to a large market or highway [16,17]. Additional variation in enset-based systems is observed due to wealth of the farming household, farming skills, landholding size and availability of resources [2,17].
In this study, we characterized enset-based cropping systems covering an extensive geographical and altitudinal range across the main enset-growing belt of Ethiopia. Through interviews with enset-growing households, we aimed (i) to identify crop and livestock diversity of enset-producing farms across a range of agro-ecological conditions; (ii) to disentangle drivers that diversify production systems, including agro-ecological, cultural and socio-economic conditions; and (iii) to assess if diverse enset subsistence farms are able to sustain the dietary needs of the household. The continued sustainability of enset-based production systems is under pressure due to pests and diseases, climate change and an increasing population [1,18], and farmers have reported a perceived decline in enset production [3,17,19,20]. We therefore additionally aimed (iv) to identify the main constraints that enset farmers face, and their perceived needs to maintain sustainability in the future.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Area

Field surveys were conducted across the main enset-growing belt in the highlands of the South-West Ethiopia Peoples’ region, the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ region (SNNPR) and the Sidama region (Figure 1). Eight zones representing major ethnic groups were purposefully selected across the three regions according to the high importance of enset production systems and to ascertain the inclusion of the Omotic, Cushitic and Semitic language families (Supplementary Figure S1). Five zones were selected in the SNNPR (Gurage, Hadiya, Kembata Tembaro, Gamo and Gedeo), two zones in the South-West region (Kaffa and Dawro), and one zone in Sidama representing the entire Sidama region (Figure 1, Table 1). In each zone, two kebeles (wards) with a long history of enset farming and high importance of enset in production systems were selected. In the Gedeo and the Sidama zones where enset cultivation is very important and widespread, two additional kebeles were selected, in order to cover all potential diversity within these zones. Kebeles are the smallest administrative units in Ethiopia, comprising, on average, 500 households per unit or the equivalent of 3500 to 4000 persons, although this can vary substantially [21,22]. Overall, the survey covers twenty kebeles with substantial enset production systems across fifteen woredas (districts) and eight zones. Nine to 21 enset-growing households were randomly selected per kebele, and an overall total of 375 households participated in the study. The selected kebeles cover an altitudinal range of 1500 to 3000 masl (Table 1).

2.2. Standardized Interviews

Interviews with enset-producing households were carried out by trained bureau of agriculture and extension service officers between September 2013 and October 2015. A semi-standardized questionnaire was used (available in Supplementary Information) to interview the head of each household accompanied by the person responsible for farm management (if different from the head of the household). The questionnaires consisted of structured multiple choice and yes/no questions to determine the basic characteristics of the household and farm, combined with open follow-up questions allowing the farmer to provide more detailed responses.
The survey results presented in this study are part of a larger survey on a full characterization of enset farms and farming systems. In this study we focus on the main characteristics defining enset-based systems (including the available resources (e.g., land holding), the diversity of crops grown, and the farms’ sustainability to fulfil the dietary needs of the household). This paper accompanies two other publications derived from the same enset systems survey, with one on enset landrace diversity and landrace characteristics (manuscript under review), and another on biotic constraints to enset farming systems with a main focus on Xanthomonas wilt, a bacterial disease [23].

2.3. Data Analysis

The summarized statistics are presented at the kebele level using descriptive statistics. The responses to categorical questions are summarized as the percentage of households within a kebele giving the same response. Questions with numerical values as responses were first tested for normality (Shapiro–Wilk normality test), and differences between kebeles were either assessed through an analysis of variance followed by a Tukey test at a 5% probability level for mean separation, or the Kruskal–Wallis test combined with a pairwise comparison using the Mann–Whitney U (Wilcoxon rank sum) test [24].
The variability of farm-level characteristics was assessed at the kebele-level (as an indicator for cultural background and ethnic groups), according to the economic status of the household (perceived status as reported by the head of the household as rich, medium or poor; some households did not know how to assess their economic status, and were categorized a posteriori by the size of their family, the area of cultivated land and the number of livestock they owned), or according to altitude (as an indicator for agro-ecological zones and the associated environmental conditions) (Table 1 and Table 2). Pearson correlations were used to assess the relationship between various numerical responses (e.g., variation of land holding sizes with altitude), and an analysis of variance or Kruskal–Wallis test was used to assess if the numerical responses varied with categorical groups (e.g., variation of land holding sizes with economic status). All analyses were performed using R version 3.6.3 [25].

3. Results

3.1. Household Resource Characteristics

Land holding and available farmland for cultivation varied significantly among kebeles. Household land holdings ranged from large areas in the kebeles Harro Worab (5.6 ± 1.5 ha), Warka Sakaro (4.6 ± 2.9 ha) and Dish (4.4 ± 2.8 ha) down to small land sizes in Belle (0.7 ± 0.5 ha), Asoote (1.0 ± 0.6 ha) and Getema (1.0 ± 0.5 ha) (Table 1). Most households allocated 60–100% of their farm to the cultivation of crops, and the remaining area was often forested or reserved for grazing. Larger farms had 2–3.5 ha available for the cultivation of crops, while smaller farms were limited to fields of 0.5–1 ha. A few households rented additional land for crop cultivation, e.g., in Abera Gelede (55% of households rent) and Harro Molicha (25%).
Overall, the size of the land holdings and cultivated areas decreased with increasing altitude (r = −0.37, p < 0.001; r = −0.33, p < 0.001, respectively) (Supplementary Information Figure S2). The sizes of the land holdings and cultivated areas were also positively correlated with the number of family members within the household (r = 0.32, p < 0.001, r = 0.23, p < 0.001). The labour for work on the farm varied significantly across kebeles, with several kebeles performing all farm work with family members (e.g., Harro Molicha, Anabelessa, Dish; Table 1) while other kebeles reported that around half of the people working were hired labour (e.g., Asoote, Warka Sakaro, Yedeb and Aleme Korcha). The need to hire labour was positively correlated to the area of cultivated land (r = 0.12, p < 0.05) and the area for enset cultivation (r = 0.19, p < 0.001).
Irrespective of the size of farmland available or the size of the family, crop variability ranged between 2 to 15 crop species grown (including cereals, roots, tubers, pulses and vegetables; Table 1). The lowest crop variability was observed in the kebeles Mari Ediget (4.8 ± 1.6 crop species), Yedeb Endbra (5.0 ± 1.6) and Harro Badamea (5.1 ± 2.3) and the highest crop diversity in Layegnaw Gana (10.7 ± 1.7), Harro Molicha (10.0 ± 0.6) and Abera Gelede (9.8 ± 2.8).
Most households additionally raise several types of livestock species (1 to 7 species in a single household; Supplementary Table S1). The ownership of livestock was positively related to the size of the land holding and to the number of family members (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.21, p < 0.001; Supplementary Information Figure S3). Cows were the most commonly owned type of livestock (Table 1), with the number of cows on a farm ranging from 1.6 ± 1.4 in Harmufo to 9.7 ± 4.9 in Dish (Supplementary Information Table S1). Some types of livestock were also related to the altitude, with the number of poultry on a farm being higher at lower altitudes (r = −0.21, p < 0.001) and the ownership of horses being higher at high altitudes (r = 0.31, p < 0.001).
The perceived economic status of a household highly depended on cultivated land area and livestock resources. Accordingly, poor households had significantly smaller land holdings and smaller areas available for crop cultivation, cultivated fewer crops and raised fewer numbers and types of livestock (Table S2). Generally, households at higher altitudes more frequently reported their economic status as poor.

3.2. Share of Enset on Enset-Growing Farms

The importance and extent of enset cultivation varied among the kebeles (Table 3). The area of farmland attributed to the cultivation of enset decreased with altitude (r = −0.17, p < 0.01; Supplementary Information Figure S2), in line with an overall decrease in available farmland for crops with increasing altitude level. The proportion of cultivated land used for enset, however, did not relate to the altitude, but varied with the economic status of the household. In poorer households with less land available for crop cultivation, significantly more space was allocated to the cultivation of enset (on average 45 ± 30% of available fields compared to 23 ± 14% in rich households; Table S3). The share of cultivated land attributed to the production of enset was also significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the Cushitic group (44 ± 25%) compared to the Omotic (24 ± 20%) and Semitic (31 ± 14%) groups. The size of the fields designated for enset cultivation was, however, similar among the linguistic groups, although considerable variability was found between kebeles. Enset fields ranged from 0.1 ± 0.1 ha in Asoote to 1.5 ± 1.2 ha in Warka Sakaro, although in most kebeles, the area for enset cultivation remained below 1 ha.
The diversity of enset landraces grown on a farm ranged from 1 to 19 (Table 3), with an average of 7 ± 3 landraces per farm, and correlated significantly to the size of the land area attributed to enset cultivation (r = 0.36, p < 0.001). The landrace richness varied significantly across kebeles (Table 1), with kebeles belonging to the Omotic linguistic group maintaining a significantly lower (p < 0.001) landrace richness of 5.5 ± 2.4 compared to those of the Semitic (8.6 ± 4) and the Cushitic (7.4 ± 2.9) groups. Landrace diversity was also significantly lower in poorer households (5 ± 2, p < 0.01) compared to medium and rich households (7 ± 3). The reported dominant landraces varied substantially among kebeles (Table 3), although the cultivar ‘Genticho’ was very popular in the Gedeo and Sidama zones (Table 3).

3.3. Other Important Crops on Enset-Growing Farms

The main crops grown besides enset varied with the altitude of the kebeles (Figure 2a–d). At the lower investigated altitudes (~1800–2100 masl), the majority of households relied on the cultivation of coffee and maize. Only in the lowest kebele Gendo Bacho (~1700 masl), no coffee was grown. The root and tuber crops yam, sweet potato and taro were additionally grown in Gendo Bacho, Harro Worab and Ermo. Teff formed an additional important cereal in Gendo Bacho, Yedeb Endbra and Yedeb, while in Ermo, the households relied on sorghum. Khat was grown as a cash crop in several of the households in Yedeb Endbra and Yedeb.
At the mid altitudes (~2100–2300 masl), maize remained an important cereal, as did teff and to some extent sorghum. At these altitudes, wheat and barley were additional important cereals (e.g., in Wonjela, Layegnaw Gana and Belle). Irish potatoes were the main tubers produced by several households in Getema and Belle. Coffee remained an important cash crop in the kebele Dish.
At the highest altitudes (~2300–3000 masl), cereal production shifted fully to maize, wheat and barley. Faba beans were a major legume, in addition to some peas. Irish potato remained the main tuber crop produced.

3.4. Intercropping in Enset Fields

A selection of the main crops grown on the farms were intercropped in the enset plots (Figure 2e and Figure 3, Table 3), including coffee, common beans, maize, khat and the vegetables pumpkins, cabbage and spinach, as a single intercrop or in combination with other intercrops.
Intercropping was generally only used in the first one to two years of enset production (Table 3). Only in Yedeb and Yedeb Endbra, intercropping between enset plants of 3.4 ± 1.7 and 3.7 ± 0.9 years was reported. In these younger fields, enset plants were still relatively small and intercrops that tolerate some shading can be cultivated. Shading was the most commonly reported challenge of intercropping between enset, and the main reason reported in the kebeles Gendo Bacho, Anabelessa, Harmufo, Mari Ediget and Harro Badamea for cultivating enset as a monocrop (Supplementary Information Figure S4). Other commonly reported challenges included resource (soil nutrient) competition, reduced crop productivity and complicated field management. Farmers that did integrate intercrops generally reported doing so for effective land use, allowing for an increased productivity. The shade provided by enset was also reported as an advantage for the production of coffee. Young coffee plants require moderate shading for optimal growth and development.

3.5. Food Consumption

Most households were highly dependent on enset for food consumption. Kocho was consumed two to three times a day (14–21 times a week; Figure 4, Table S4). The consumption of kocho was only lower in Asoote, where it was still eaten once daily. In most households where kocho was eaten during ‘only’ one or two meals a day, bulla and/or amicho was also consumed daily. The consumption of kocho and amicho products did not vary with the economic status of the household. Bulla was, however, less frequently consumed in poorer households.
Most meals also consisted of some type of vegetable (including cabbage, spinach, etc.) consumed once to three times a day. The consumption of legumes was rarely reported, and can be assumed to have been grouped with the consumption of vegetables in most households. Enjera (fermented pancake-like flatbread) or other types of bread were consumed daily in the kebeles Asoote, Anabelessa, L/Gana, Wonjela, Yedeb and Ermo. In the other kebeles, bread products were consumed a couple of times a week. Meat was consumed once daily in the kebeles Dish, Layegnaw Gana, Yedeb and Ermo. In most other kebeles, meat was only consumed once a week (e.g., in Mari Ediget, Gendo Bacho), or even more sporadically (e.g., in Harro Molicha, Aleme Korcha). Meat and milk were more frequently consumed in rich households. All other foods did not vary with the economic status of the household.
Households were highly dependent on on-farm production for food. Supplemental food purchases generally involved meat or bread products (Supplementary Table S5).

3.6. Trends in Enset Cultivation and Perspectives

Across kebeles, farmers have reported increasing and decreasing trends in enset cultivation (general perceived trends by farmers during the years predating the interviews which occurred in the period September 2013 to October 2015) (Figure 5). Various reasons have been reported for the increasing trends. Most generally, farmers reported simply having to increase their enset plantation area/production (e.g., in Aleme Korcha and Harmufo), while others more specifically report the need to increase production for food security (e.g., in Harro Molicha and Ermo). The application of compost/manure has increased enset cultivation in Aleme Korcha and Harro Badamea, and overall good farm management was reported to have increased enset production in Wonjela. Farmers in Harro Badamea and Gomora Gaweda reported that favourable weather in recent years have increased enset production trends. Decreasing trends in enset farming were more uniformly related to disease, most often Xanthomonas wilt of enset (including in Mari Ediget, Anabelessa, Dish, etc.).
Farmers’ perspective on expected changes in the years post-interview generally followed their previous experience. Namely, households reporting increasing trends over the most recent years expected this increasing trend to continue and households reporting decreasing trends over the most recent years expected this decreasing trend to continue. Only in Dish was this not the case; here, households expected increasing trends irrespective of decreasing records over the pre-interview years. The prediction of increasing trends in the coming years were often related to expected needs of food security and increased production to accommodate population growth. Several farmers related expected increased production to expected new technologies in enset farming (e.g., in Gomora Gaweda), or new varieties resistant to disease and/or tolerant to drought (e.g., in Yedeb).

4. Discussion

Enset farming systems varied substantially with regard to the level of importance of enset on the farm, the co-staple crops cultivated on the farm, and the overall crop and livestock diversity. Environmental and agro-ecological conditions delimited the production possibilities for the farmer/in a region and form the main driver of the observed variability. Additional observed variations were related to the wealth of the enset-growing households, as farmers are dependent on the landholding and resources they have available, and to the cultural practices of the local ethnic groups.

4.1. Crop Diversity and the Share of Enset

Enset is cultivated as a part of mixed subsistence farming systems maintaining a high diversity of crops [2,14]. The share of enset on these farms and the extent to which households depends on enset as a staple crop has been shown to vary, and is used as one of the criteria to classify enset agricultural systems [2,5]. The land area allocated to the cultivation of enset co-varied with the overall farming land available to cultivate crops, and decreased with increasing altitudes. However, relatively more land (45%) was allocated to the cultivation of enset in poorer households (having on average 0.5 ha cultivation area available) compared to medium (38%) and richer (23%) households. Large farm holders can produce sufficient enset for consumption and allot an increasingly larger area to grow other crops, while poor households rely on the increased food security provided by enset. At smaller spatial scales (with less variation caused by altitudinal differences), this relationship did not necessarily hold. Abebe and Bongers [26] investigated enset–coffee systems in the Sidama zone and reported that poor households had a higher share of land growing annual crops (e.g., maize, sweet potato) with less land retained/occupied by enset which needs multiple years to mature (4–7 years) [1].
The food crop diversity, with an average of 6.4 different food crop species on a farm, did not vary with the wealth status of the households. A high farm-level crop species diversity was a key part of the self-reliance of small-holder subsistence farming systems common in Ethiopia, with similar national averages of crop diversity found across Ethiopia [27]. Cereals were the most common type of co-staples cultivated in the enset-growing households and, although to a lesser extent, roots and tuber crops and legumes were also commonly co-cultivated. While the share of land allocated to the various crops was not quantified in this survey, the co-staple crops reported by farmers take up a substantial part of the cultivation area. Abebe [16] reported that, on average, farmers devote about half of the farm to energy-producing staple crops, including enset, cereals, root and tuber crops [16]. Cash crops such as coffee and khat can also form key crops of enset farming systems. Vegetable crops, while commonly grown, are generally not reported by the farmers as a main crop within their farming system. While they make up an important part of the local diet, less farming area is generally attributed to vegetable crops [16]. Finally, farmers also maintain a variety of spices, medicinal plants, grasses, trees and shrubs, further increasing the plant species diversity on farms. Trees in particular (e.g., fruit trees like avocado, orange/ lemon, guava, trees for firewood and planks, and coffee) can form an important aspect of enset-producing farms as part of an agroforestry-type system [15,28,29].
Enset itself also represents a genetically diverse crop, with landraces expressing distinct morphological traits [6,11]. Specific landraces can be preferred by farmers for various purposes, and most enset farmers cultivate many landraces in mixtures to diversify their use [15,30]. More landraces were grown on larger farms and poor households cultivated fewer landraces. With less land available, farmers generally prefer to grow few high-yielding landraces and focus less on maintaining enset landraces preferred for other purposes. Cultivating a variety of enset landraces can also be a sign of status within the community [31].
Livestock rearing represents an additional aspect of production diversity within enset production systems [27]. In addition to the increased availability of diverse food products (meat and dairy), farmers can co-benefit from the combination of enset production with livestock raising. The manure produced by livestock on farms, often cows, is used for fertilizing enset crops [12,31]. The application of manure improves soil fertility, and thus increases enset productivity and growth rates [32,33]. The year-round availability of enset plants also reduces the risk of feed shortage [34]. For example, enset leaves are often used as fodder during the dry season months when crop residues or weeds are not always readily available.

4.2. Staple Crops Grown on Enset Farms

Maize was found to be an important co-staple of the enset-based cropping systems, observed across the entire investigated altitudinal range. Maize is a highly common crop throughout Ethiopia (14.2% of total area cultivated), the second most common after teff (20.9% of total area cultivated) [35,36], while its total annual production and productivity exceeds all other cereals (23.24% of 13.7 million tons; [35]). Maize also represents an important food security crop, providing the cheapest caloric source among all major cereals [37]. For example, the unit cost of calories per USD for maize is one-and-a-half and two times lower than that for wheat and teff, respectively [38]. As such, the cultivation of maize is often promoted by extension services in Ethiopia and its production and consumption has significantly increased during the recent decades [37]. Nevertheless, while maize can be grown under diverse agro-ecological conditions (lowlands to mid-altitudes, up to 2400 m, typically under rain-fed production; [39]), the maize varieties grown in the Ethiopian highlands are often local varieties with poor agronomic practices resulting in reduced productivity [40]. Its production further requires external inputs, ideally the use of chemical fertilizer [9], often not available to small-holder farmers, and is prone to failure in dry years. Increasing reliance on maize in enset-based systems can therefore jeopardize, to some extent, the stability and sustainability of these farming systems [16].
At the upper altitudes, maize was not present in all kebeles, and wheat and barley generally supplemented or substituted maize as the main cereal crop. Here, barley is consumed in the form of various traditional foods and local beverages from different barley types [41,42], and wheat grains are used to prepare bread, enjera, porridge, soup and roasted grain [43]. Wheat and barley are more suited to the agro-ecological conditions at higher altitudes then maize. In Ethiopia, wheat is grown at an altitude ranging from 1500 to 3000 masl [44], and barley is produced between 1800 and 3400 masl [45]. While the production of these two cereal crops is possible across the entire investigated altitudinal range, it is found to be mostly constrained to more marginal environments at higher altitudes.
At the lower investigated altitudes, farmers mainly opted for the production of teff, in addition to maize, in terms of cereal crops. Throughout Ethiopia, teff accounted for the largest share of the cultivated area (28.5%) in 2013, and the second in terms of quantity of production [36,46]. It is a staple food for a large portion of the Ethiopian population and is the primary and preferred ingredient in Ethiopian fermented flatbread (enjera) [47]. Teff is adapted to a wide variety of environmental conditions, relatively resistant to many biotic and abiotic stresses and is widely grown up to 2800 masl [42,47]. However, the average grain yield of teff is low compared to other cereals crops [48], and its cultivation has a high labour requirement. Thus, the market value of teff is often two or three times higher than maize, making teff an important cash crop (second to coffee) [49]. This trade-off between lower productivity rates and higher market value potentially influences the cereal crop selection in the investigated enset-growing households. Kebeles at higher altitudes still suitable for the production of teff (e.g., in Harmufo, Mari Ediget, Harro Badamea, etc.) are potentially constrained by a more difficult access to markets, rendering the cultivation of teff less desirable.
Coffee is the main cash crop grown in enset-based production systems at altitudes of 1500–2300 m [26]. Coffee has a less restrictive market than teff, with extensive regional, national and international sales markets. The cultivation of cash crops (mainly coffee, and to a lesser extent teff and khat) as an integral part of the enset-based production system was a major distinction with enset-growing households at higher altitudes. At higher altitudes, crop selection was mainly focused on subsistence and self-reliance in terms of food production, while at lower altitudes, cash crops provided a source of income enabling farmers to buy what they need for subsistence. Besides environmental conditions determining crop potential, market access determines a households’ potential to rely on cash crops [26]. Households with good market access, either because of the physical proximity of large markets or good access to major roads, have been shown to allocate a smaller proportion of their land to enset cultivation and a higher proportion to cash crops [26], and to maintain an overall lower crop diversity [17]. In this study, households cultivating cash crops did not maintain a lower crop diversity, although no information was available on the amount of land allocated to each crop.

4.3. Crop Arrangements on Enset Farms

The spatial and temporal arrangement of crops in enset-based farms varied between localities, with a wide range of crop combinations possible, often with perennials and annuals intercropped in a multilevel agroforestry-type system [15]. The enset–coffee system was a common configuration, in which enset served as a shade crop for coffee. Enset–coffee farms were often part of an agroforestry system, whereby farmers clear away the undergrowth to plant enset and coffee, leaving the upper story trees [16].
Intercropping with annual crops was solely done in the early stages of enset development, when shade levels remained limited, mainly to optimize land-use. Maize was the most commonly reported intercrop in this survey, and enset intercropping with common beans, pumpkins, cabbage and spinach was sporadically reported. The cereals teff, wheat and barley were grown as a monocrop in separate fields, often adjacent to the enset plots.

4.4. Food Consumption

Enset is a staple food of all enset-growing households, and is consumed at least twice, often three times a day, irrespective of the economic status of the household [3]. Enset was mainly consumed in the form of kocho, a fermented flatbread produced from the enset corm and pseudostem starch. The production and consumption of bulla (premium starch collected during enset processing for kocho, thereafter rehydrated from concentrate and prepared as pancake or porridge) and amicho (boiled corm pieces, eaten like potato) were less common. Enset processing preferences are highly culturally variable and depend on the cultural practices of the local ethnic groups [13,50]. The production of bulla involves additional processing steps such as dehydration [12] and this food item is less commonly consumed in poor households. Bulla also fetches premium prices on the market.
While enset provides the ability to feed more people per unit area of land than any other crop grown in Ethiopia [4,51], people need nutritional diversity to maintain a well-rounded diet [15]. Enset is a starchy crop, high in carbohydrates and mineral contents, but low in vitamins and protein content [52]. Complementing enset with meat and dairy products, legumes and vegetables ensures a diet rich in protein and vitamins [3,15]. Vegetables, including legumes, were reportedly consumed during most meals. Only a few households acquired additional vegetables from the market, and most families relied on vegetables produced on their farm. Meat and dairy products, however, were far less commonly consumed, and their consumption often depended on market purchases. Regular meat and dairy consumption was rarely possible in poor households.
While most households, irrespective of their economic status, would report access to a regular and balanced diet, the survey set-up with consumption grouped by general food types (e.g., vegetables, enset products, meat and dairy) did not allow for the quantification of dietary diversity. The self-reliant subsistence character of these households suggests a strong correlation between dietary diversity and crop diversity indicating that all investigated households, independent of their economic status, would achieve a similar dietary diversity (as the crop diversity was similar). However, market access and purchasing power can substantially improve dietary diversity [3,27].

4.5. Trends in Enset Cultivation and Perspectives

Xanthomonas wilt of enset is a major constraint on enset farms [18,20,53], and a widespread prevalence of 70% (households with at least one infected plant) was reported in this survey across the entire study region. Xanthomonas wilt is caused by the pathogen Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearum [54]. The pathogen infects the enset plant (and Musa spp.) through exposed wounded tissue and spreads throughout the plant via its vascular system, causing leaf yellowing and wilting [18]. Xanthomonas wilt generally leads to the death of the enset plant resulting in total yield loss for the farmer [55]. The disease has caused decreasing trends in enset production on 35% of the investigated farms, with farmers allocating more of the available cultivation to other crops with a higher perceived food security. A substantial switch to the cultivation of other crops can impact the sustainability of enset-based farming systems, impacting food security. The spread of Xanthomonas wilt can, however, effectively be prevented by introducing disease management practices on a farm [18,56,57]. However, not all farmers are well informed about the necessary practices, and training in disease management practices by extension services has been shown to be critical, reducing farmer reports of decreasing trends in enset production by 77%.
Multiple households reported ongoing increasing trends in the cultivation of enset, and the expected need for increased enset cultivation in the coming years have mainly been driven by the need for increased food availability and food security to accommodate population growth. Ethiopia currently has one of the fastest growing populations in the world, with an annual growth rate of 2.54% [58], while at the same time struggling with food shortages. Enset being a major food security crop, withstanding a range of environmental conditions and providing ample food availability year-round [2], the farmers’ intentions of increasing its cultivation and/or production can be well understood. However, this will require additional farming land, not generally available to small-holder farmers, or crop intensification on the existing farms. Crop intensification might increase production in the short-term, but can cause soil nutrient depletion and overall reduced soil fertility [59], affecting the long-term sustainability of the system. Many studies propose the use of ‘sustainable intensification’ increasing food or feed production with minimal environmental impacts and without undermining sustainability goals [34,60,61,62], although progress towards sustainable intensification in enset-based farming systems in Ethiopia has been slow and depends on access to good quality extension and knowledge exchange opportunities [62].

5. Conclusions

The high diversity maintained in the enset-based cropping systems of the southern Ethiopian highlands is an essential component of sustainable agriculture and is key to sustainable food security [63,64]. The combination of livestock, larger trees and annual and perennial food and cash crops with diversified production cycles all contribute to multiple household needs. Enset is a critical staple crop for all visited enset-growing households and enset-derived food items are a main component of multiple daily meals. The high dependence on enset in poor households ensures a reliable food source in times of potential scarcity, and thus minimizes food security risks. The purchasing power of enset-growing households varied, but was predominantly low, translating into often limited additional food purchases at local markets [27]. Under these circumstances, it is imperative that farm crop diversity is preserved or even expanded so that dietary diversity can be maintained or even improved. The need for crop intensification with a growing population should therefore not only focus on the agro-ecological sustainability of the system, but should also endeavour to preserve the high level of self-reliance that the enset farming systems have provided for centuries.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15097066/s1.

Author Contributions

G.B. mobilized the resources for the study, conceived and co-developed the research concept and contributed to methodology development, data analysis, results interpretation and manuscript writing and editing. E.K. led the data analysis, contributed to results interpretation, data visualization and manuscript writing and editing. S.B. led the research concept and methodology development, led/coordinated field/household data collection and contributed to results interpretation and manuscript editing. A.C. contributed to the research concept and methodology development. R.K. contributed to data entry and cleaning. T.A. contributed to results interpretation and manuscript editing. Z.Y. contributed to results interpretation and manuscript editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Partial funding to carry out the field surveys was provided by the Directorate General for Development, Belgium, through the Consortium for Improving Agriculture-Based Livelihoods in Central Africa (CIALCA).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher. In addition, the full household survey questionnaire can be made available to any interested party upon request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all funders who have supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: www.cgiar.org/funders/.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as or result in a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Borrell, J.S.; Biswas, M.K.; Goodwin, M.; Blomme, G.; Schwarzacher, T.; Heslop-Harrison, J.S.; Wendawek, A.M.; Berhanu, A.; Kallow, S.; Janssens, S.; et al. Enset in Ethiopia: A poorly characterized but resilient starch staple. Ann. Bot. 2019, 123, 747–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Brandt, S.A.; Spring, A.; Hiebsch, C.; McCabe, J.T.; Tabogie, E.; Diro, M.; Wolde-Michael, G.; Yntiso, G.; Shigeta, M.; Tesfaye, S. The “tree against hunger”. In Enset-Based Agricultural Systems in Ethiopia; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; p. 66. [Google Scholar]
  3. Negash, A. Diversity and Conservation of Enset (Ensete Ventricosum Welw. Cheesman) and its Relation to Household Food and Livelihood Security in South-Western Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2001; p. 247. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tsegaye, A. On Indigenous Production, Genetic Diversity and Crop Ecology of Enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman). Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2002; p. 105. [Google Scholar]
  5. Negash, A.; Niehof, A. The significance of enset culture and biodiversity for rural household food and livelihood security in southwestern Ethiopia. Agric. Hum. Values 2004, 21, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Olango, T.M.; Tesfaye, B.; Catellani, M.; Pè, M.E. Indigenous knowledge, use and on-farm management of enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman) diversity in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2014, 10, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sahle, M.; Yeshitela, K.; Saito, O. Mapping the supply and demand of Enset crop to improve food security in Southern Ethiopia. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Degu, G.; Workayehu, T. Initial Results of Informal Survey of Areka Area Mixed Farming Zone, Wolyita Awraja; Working Paper; IAR: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1990; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  9. Quinlan, R.J.; Quinlan, M.B.; Dira, S.; Caudell, M.; Sooge, A.; Assoma, A.A. Vulnerability and Resilience of Sidama Enset and Maize Farms in Southwestern Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. 2015, 35, 314–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zerfu, A.; Gebre, S.L.; Berecha, G.; Getahun, K. Assessment of spatial distribution of enset plant diversity and enset bacteria wilt using geostatistical techniques in Yem special district, Southern Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 2018, 7, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yemataw, Z.; Mohamed, H.; Diro, M.; Addis, T.; Blomme, G. Enset (Ensete ventricosum) clone selection by farmers and their cultural practices in southern Ethiopia. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 2014, 61, 1091–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Borrell, J.S.; Goodwin, M.; Blomme, G.; Jacobsen, K.; Wendawek, A.M.; Gashu, D.; Lulekal, E.; Asfaw, Z.; Demissew, S.; Wilkin, P. Enset-based agricultural systems in Ethiopia: A systematic review of production trends, agronomy, processing and the wider food security applications of a neglected banana relative. Plants People Planet 2020, 2, 212–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Garedew, B.; Ayiza, A.; Haile, B.; Kasaye, H. Indigenous knowledge of Enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman) cultivation and management practice by Shekicho people, southwest Ethiopia. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 5, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Asfaw, Z.; Nigatu, A. Home-gardens in Ethiopia: Characteristics and plant diversity. Sinet Ethiop. J. Sci. 1995, 18, 235–266. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jacobsen, K.; Blomme, G.; Tawle, K.; Muzemil, S.; Yemataw, Z. Dietary diversity associated with different enset [Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman]-based production systems in Ethiopia. Fruits 2018, 73, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abebe, T. Diversity of Homegarden Agroforestry Systems of Southern Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 143. [Google Scholar]
  17. Abebe, T. Determinants of crop diversity and composition in Enset-coffee agroforestry homegardens of Southern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Rural. Dev. Trop. Subtrop. 2003, 114, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
  18. Blomme, G.; Dita, M.; Jacobsen, K.S.; Vicente, L.P.; Molina, A.; Ocimati, W.; Poussier, S.; Prior, P. Bacterial Diseases of Bananas and Enset: Current State of Knowledge and Integrated Approaches toward Sustainable Management. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Zippel, K. Diversity over time and space in Enset landraces (Ensete ventricosum) in Ethiopia. In African Biodiversity; Huber, B.A., Sinclair, B.J., Lampe, K.-H., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 423–438. [Google Scholar]
  20. Yemataw, Z.; Mekonen, A.; Chala, A.; Tesfaye, K.; Mekonen, K.; Studholme, D.J.; Sharma, K. Farmers’ knowledge and perception of enset Xanthomonas wilt in southern Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Treiber, M. Ethiopia: The Kebele System. 2010. Available online: https://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/sites/srlan/files/joomlaimages/Treiber_-_The_Kebele_System_Ethiopia_21.doc (accessed on 24 September 2022).
  22. Anonymous. Wards of Ethiopia. 2022. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wards_of_Ethiopia (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  23. Blomme, G.; Kearsley, E.; Buta, S.; Chala, A.; Kebede, R.; Addis, T.; Yemataw, Z. Xanthomonas wilt of enset in Ethiopia: Geographical spread, impact on production systems and the effect of training on disease management practices. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2003, 19, 33–47. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. 2021. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 25 January 2023).
  26. Abebe, T.; Bongers, F. Land-use dynamics in enset-based agroforestry homegardens in Ethiopia. In Forest-People Interfaces: Understanding Community Forestry and Biocultural Diversity; Arts, B., van Bommel, S., Ros-Tonen, M., Verschoor, G., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 69–85. ISBN 9789086867493. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sibhatu, K.T.; Krishna, V.V.; Qaim, M. Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm households. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 10657–10662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abebe, T.; Wiersum, K.F.; Bongers, F. Spatial and temporal variation in crop diversity in agroforestry homegardens of southern Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst. 2010, 78, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Negash, M.; Yirdaw, E.; Luukkanen, O. Potential of indigenous multistrata agroforests for maintaining native floristic diversity in the south-eastern Rift Valley escarpment, Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 85, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shumbulo, A.; Gecho, Y.; Tora, M. Diversity, challenges and potentials of Enset (Ensete ventricosum) production: In case of Offa Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Food Sci. Qual. Manag. 2012, 7, 24–32. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tsegaye, A.; Struik, P.C. Analysis of enset (Ensete ventricosum) indigenous production methods and farm-based biodiversity in major enset-growing regions of southern Ethiopia. Exp. Agric. 2002, 38, 291–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Uloro, Y.; Mengel, K. Yield and yield components of enset with the application of mineral fertilizers of N, P, K and S. In Enset-Based Sustainable Agriculture in Ethiopia, Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993; Abate, T., Hiebsch, C., Brandt, S., Gebremariam, S., Eds.; Institute of Agricultural Research: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1996; pp. 276–286. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ayalew, A. Effects of different levels of inorganic fertilizers applications on the production of Enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw) Cheesman). J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 5, 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  34. Yemataw, Z.; Tawle, K.; Bolton, M.; Kebede, R.; Blomme, G.; Consultant, A.A.I. Integration of shade-tolerant forage legumes under enset [Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman] plants in south-western Ethiopia. Fruits 2018, 73, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wende, A.; Mosisa, W.; Birhanu, T.; Legesse, W.; Twumasi, A. Performance of CIMMTY maize germplasm under low nitrogen soil conditions in the mid altitude sub humid agro ecology of Ethiopia. Afr. Crop Sci. Conf. Proc. 2007, 18, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  36. Taffesse, S.A.; Dorosh, P.; Asrat, S. Crop Production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns and Trends, Summary of ESSP II Working Paper 16, “Crop Production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns and Trends”. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program (ESSP II). Research Note 11. 2012. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/essprn11.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2022).
  37. Demeke, M. Analysis of incentives and disincentives for maize in Ethiopia. In Technical Notes Series; MAFAP, FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rashid, S.; Getnet, K.; Lemma, S. Maize Value chain Potential in Ethiopia: Constraints and Opportunities for Enhancing the System; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  39. MOA. New Agro-Ecological Zones of Ethiopia; Ministry of Agriculture: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yoseph, B.; Anna-Maria, B.; Alex, A.; Er, A.M.; Beyene, Y.; Botha, A.-M.; Myburg, E.A. A comparative study of molecular and morphological methods of describing genetic relationships in traditional Ethiopian highland maize. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2005, 4, 596–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zemede, A. The Barley of Ethiopia. In Genes in the Field: On farm Conservation of Crop Diversity; Stephen, B., Brush, Eds.; IDRC/IPGRI; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 77–108. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wasihun, G.; Desu, A. Trend of cereal crops production area and productivity, in Ethiopia. J. Cereals Oilseeds 2021, 12, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nigussie, A.; Kedir, A.; Adisu, A.; Belay, G.; Gebrie, D.; Desalegn, K. Bread wheat production in small scale irrigation users agro-pastoral households in Ethiopia: Case of Afar and Oromia regional state. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 2015, 7, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fikre, G.; Alamerew, S.; Tadesse, Z. Genetic Variability Studies in Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes at Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, South East Ethiopia. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2015, 5, 89–98. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ashamo, M.; Chumamo, M.; Goa, Y. Performance of Malt Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Varieties in Selected Districts of Southern Ethiopia. Adv. Crop Sci. Technol. 2000, 8, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. CSA (Central Statistical Agency). Agricultural Sample Survey 2019/2020. In Area and Production of Major Crops. (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season); CSA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  47. Minten, B.; Taffesse, A.S.; Brown, P. The Economics of Teff: Exploring Ethiopia’s Biggest Cash Crop; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2018; p. 448. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tulema, B.; Zapata, F.; Aune, J.; Sitaula, B.N. fertilisation, soil type and cultivars effects on N use efficiency in tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotte]. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2005, 71, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Reda, A. Achieving Food Security in Ethiopia by Promoting Productivity of Future World Food Tef: A Review. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 2015, 2, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hunduma, T.; Ashenafi, M. Traditional Enset (Ensete ventricosum) processing techniques in some parts of West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Dev. 2011, 2, 37–57. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bayu, T.Y. Land use dynamics and challenges of enset (Ensete ventricosum) agriculture in the upper reaches of Baso-Deme watershed, Gamo Highland, SW Ethiopia. Glob. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci. 2016, 5, 20–28. [Google Scholar]
  52. Fanta, S.W.; Neela, S. A review on nutritional profile of the food from enset. Nutr. Food Sci. 2019, 49, 824–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yemataw, Z.; Borrell, J.S.; Biswas, M.K.; White, O.; Mengesha, W.; Muzemil, S.; Darbar, J.N.; Ondo, I.; Harrison, P.J.H.; Blomme, G.; et al. The Distribution of Enset Pests and Pathogens and a Genomic Survey of Enset Xanthomonas Wilt. bioRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yirgou, D.; Bradbury, J.F. Bacterial wilt of enset (Ensete ventricosum) incited by Xanthomonas musacearum sp. n. Phytopathology 1968, 58, 111–112. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tripathi, L.; Mwangi, M.; Abele, S.; Aritua, V.; Tushemereirwe, W.K.; Bandyopadhyay, R. Xanthomonas Wilt: A Threat to Banana Production in East and Central Africa. Plant Dis. 2009, 93, 440–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tadesse, M.; Kidist, B.; Gizachew, W.M. Enset Bacterial wilt Sanitary Control in Gurage Zone. Awassa 2003, 53, 23. [Google Scholar]
  57. Yemataw, Z.; Handoro, F.; Addis, T. Improved Enset (Ensete ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman) production technologies. In National Production Manual; SARI: Hawassa, Ethiopia, 2012; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
  58. The World Bank. 2020. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=ET (accessed on 28 March 2022).
  59. Haileslassie, A.; Priess, J.; Veldkamp, E.; Teketay, D.; Lesschen, J.P. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion and its spatial variability on smallholders’ mixed farming systems in Ethiopia using partial versus full nutrient balances. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 108, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pretty, J. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Godfray, H.C.J. The debate over sustainable intensification. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hammond, J.; van Wijk, M.; Teufel, N.; Mekonnen, K.; Thorne, P. Assessing smallholder sustainable intensification in the Ethiopian highlands. Agric. Syst. 2021, 194, 103266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kuhnlein, H.V. How Ethnobiology Can Contribute to Food Security. J. Ethnobiol. 2014, 34, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07066 g001 550
Figure 1. Study area. The survey was conducted in eight zones across the South-West region, The Sidama region and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ region (SNNPR) in southern Ethiopia. Each zone is indicated with a different colour. The kebeles (wards/neighbourhoods) participating in the survey are filled in black, with the kebele name indicated in bold.
Figure 1. Study area. The survey was conducted in eight zones across the South-West region, The Sidama region and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ region (SNNPR) in southern Ethiopia. Each zone is indicated with a different colour. The kebeles (wards/neighbourhoods) participating in the survey are filled in black, with the kebele name indicated in bold.
Sustainability 15 07066 g001
Sustainability 15 07066 g002 550
Figure 2. Enset farming systems related to altitudinal range showing (a) altitudinal ranges of all main crops grown across the kebeles, (b) elevation map of the study regions, (c) altitude ranges of kebeles, (d) main crops cultivated in the kebeles, and (e) intercrops reported in the kebeles. In panel d and e, the size of the dots represent the percentage of households reporting cultivation of the respective crop or intercrop.
Figure 2. Enset farming systems related to altitudinal range showing (a) altitudinal ranges of all main crops grown across the kebeles, (b) elevation map of the study regions, (c) altitude ranges of kebeles, (d) main crops cultivated in the kebeles, and (e) intercrops reported in the kebeles. In panel d and e, the size of the dots represent the percentage of households reporting cultivation of the respective crop or intercrop.
Sustainability 15 07066 g002
Sustainability 15 07066 g003 550
Figure 3. Examples of enset cropping systems: (a) enset monocropping plot adjacent to a vegetable garden, (b) enset intercropped with coffee and large trees, (c) young enset plants intercropped with taro, (d) young enset plants intercropped with vegetables from the Cucurbitaceae family (such as gourds, pumpkin, zucchini, melon), (e) young enset plants intercropped with maize, and (f) young enset plants intercropped with maize [forefront], while larger enset plants are intercropped with coffee and larger trees [background].
Figure 3. Examples of enset cropping systems: (a) enset monocropping plot adjacent to a vegetable garden, (b) enset intercropped with coffee and large trees, (c) young enset plants intercropped with taro, (d) young enset plants intercropped with vegetables from the Cucurbitaceae family (such as gourds, pumpkin, zucchini, melon), (e) young enset plants intercropped with maize, and (f) young enset plants intercropped with maize [forefront], while larger enset plants are intercropped with coffee and larger trees [background].
Sustainability 15 07066 g003
Sustainability 15 07066 g004 550
Figure 4. Weekly consumption of various food types. The percentage of meals per week (3 meals per day) containing the food groups reported are presented. The abbreviations: cer. = cereal products, m/d = meat and dairy, r/t = roots and tubers, leg. = legumes, veg. = vegetables, fr. = fruit. Kebeles are sorted by altitude (see Figure 2).
Figure 4. Weekly consumption of various food types. The percentage of meals per week (3 meals per day) containing the food groups reported are presented. The abbreviations: cer. = cereal products, m/d = meat and dairy, r/t = roots and tubers, leg. = legumes, veg. = vegetables, fr. = fruit. Kebeles are sorted by altitude (see Figure 2).
Sustainability 15 07066 g004
Sustainability 15 07066 g005 550
Figure 5. Trend of enset cultivation from past to current years and perspective for coming years. Increase (blue triangles upward), decrease (red triangles downward) or no reported change (circle) + reasons for increase or decrease. Sizes of the triangles/dots represent the percentage of households reporting increasing/decreasing trends/perspectives and their reasons. Kebeles are sorted by altitude (see Figure 2).
Figure 5. Trend of enset cultivation from past to current years and perspective for coming years. Increase (blue triangles upward), decrease (red triangles downward) or no reported change (circle) + reasons for increase or decrease. Sizes of the triangles/dots represent the percentage of households reporting increasing/decreasing trends/perspectives and their reasons. Kebeles are sorted by altitude (see Figure 2).
Sustainability 15 07066 g005
Table
Table 1. Basic farm characteristics across the 20 studied kebeles. Number of households that participated in the survey (n), altitude of the households (masl), the size of the total land holding (ha), area of cultivated land (ha), the percentage of households reporting owning and/or renting additional land to cultivate, the crop diversity, the most commonly cultivated crops (present at >75% of the households of a kebele, in addition to enset (i.e., all households are enset-growing households), livestock diversity, and the most commonly owned livestock species (present at >75% of the households of a kebele).
Table 1. Basic farm characteristics across the 20 studied kebeles. Number of households that participated in the survey (n), altitude of the households (masl), the size of the total land holding (ha), area of cultivated land (ha), the percentage of households reporting owning and/or renting additional land to cultivate, the crop diversity, the most commonly cultivated crops (present at >75% of the households of a kebele, in addition to enset (i.e., all households are enset-growing households), livestock diversity, and the most commonly owned livestock species (present at >75% of the households of a kebele).
KebelenAltitude
(masl)		Land Holding (ha)Cultivated Land (ha)Ownership (Own|Rent)Crop DiversityCommon CropsLivestock DiversityCommon Livestock
Asoote202981 ± 181 ± 0.6 d,e0.8 ± 0.6 f100|08.2 ± 1.5 b,c,d,ebarley (90%)—potato (90%)—wheat (90%)—pea (85%)—bean (80%)2.7 ± 1.1 b,c,dcow (100%)
Harro Molicha202780 ± 01.8 ± 0.8 d,e1.4 ± 0.6 d,e,f100|2510 ± 0.6 a,bbarley (100%)—faba bean (85%)—maize (85%)—wheat (80%)2.3 ± 0.7 dpoultry (100%)—cow (100%)
Abera Gelede202744 ± 521.9 ± 1.1 c,d,e1.9 ± 1.3 b,c,d,e,f100|559.8 ± 2.8 a,b,cbarley (100%)—bean (100%)3.5 ± 0.9 a,b,ccow (100%)—poultry (85%)—sheep (85%)
Gomora Gaweda192704 ± 671.7 ± 1.2 d,e0.5 ± 0.4 f100|06.3 ± 1.2 e,f,gwheat (100%)—barley (94%)3.3 ± 0.9 a,b,c,dcow (100%)—donkey (79%)
Harro Badamea202473 ± 103.2 ± 2.3 b,c,d1.6 ± 0.9 c,d,e,f100|55.1 ± 2.3 gmaize (100%)—faba bean (100%)3.3 ± 1.2 a,b,c,dsheep (94%)—cow (83%)
Mari Ediget202448 ± 242.4 ± 1 c,d2 ± 0.7 a,b,c,d,e,f100|04.8 ± 1.6 gwheat (80%)3 ± 1.2 a,b,c,dcow (100%)—sheep (90%)
Harmufo192326 ± 391.8 ± 0.7 c,d,e0.8 ± 0.5 f100|05.7 ± 2.7 f,g/2 ± 0.6 dcow (76%)
Anabelessa212321 ± 871.4 ± 0.5 d,e0.8 ± 0.4 f100|108.7 ± 1.9 a,b,c,dmaize (91%)3.5 ± 1.1 a,b,ccow (100%)—donkey (86%)—poultry (86%)
Dish202270 ± 343.8 ± 1.6 b2.7 ± 1.6 a,b,c100|57.5 ± 2.2 c,d,e,fbean (90%)—maize (80%)—coffee (75%)—teff (75%)4 ± 1.1 acow (100%)—horse (100%)—sheep (85%)
Belle182261 ± 160.7 ± 0.5 e0.5 ± 0.5 f100|06.6 ± 1 d,e,f,g/2.2 ± 1.2 dcow (100%)
Layegnaw Gana212219 ± 361.9 ± 0.9 c,d,e1.4 ± 0.8 d,e,f100|010.7 ± 1.7 awheat (100%)—teff (95%)—barley (90%)—maize (90%)3.6 ± 1.4 a,bcow (100%)—poultry (76%)
Wonjela162194 ± 221.3 ± 0.8 d,e0.8 ± 0.3 e,f100|07.6 ± 2.9 c,d,e,fmaize (100%)—teff (100%)—wheat (93%)2.9 ± 0.7 a,b,c,dcow (100%)—poultry (94%)
Getema202162 ± 361 ± 0.5 d,e0.9 ± 0.5 e,f100|08 ± 2.1 b,c,d,emaize (84%)2.4 ± 1.1 c,dcow (100%)
Warka Sakaro202060 ± 523.8 ± 2.1 b3.4 ± 2.7 a100|256.8 ± 2.9 d,e,f,gcoffee (100%)—maize (75%)2.2 ± 1.3 d/
Yedeb172005 ± 2952.5 ± 1 b,c,d2.4 ± 1 a,b,c,d100|248.3 ± 2.9 b,c,d,ecoffee (100%)3.1 ± 1.3 a,b,c,dcow (100%)—poultry (76%)
Yedeb Endbra201992 ± 172.4 ± 1.2 c,d1.9 ± 1 b,c,d,e,f100|05 ± 1.6 gcoffee (95%)—maize (75%)2.3 ± 1.1 dcow (100%)
Ermo161956 ± 123.3 ± 1.4 b,c3.2 ± 1.5 a,b100|08.2 ± 1.3 b,c,d,emaize (100%)—coffee (100%)—sorghum (100%)4 ± 0.9 apoultry (100%)—cow (100%)—sheep (94%)
Harro Worab201877 ± 635.6 ± 1.5 a2.2 ± 1.4 a,b,c,d,e100|06.6 ± 0.9 d,e,f,gmaize (100%)—sweet potato (100%)—coffee (85%)—yam (80%)3.1 ± 0.7 a,b,c,dcow (95%)—poultry (95%)—sheep (95%)
Aleme Korcha101857 ± 93.1 ± 2.1 b,c,d2.5 ± 1.5 a,b,c,d100|227 ± 2.3 c,d,e,f,gmaize (100%)—coffee (90%)3 ± 0.9 a,b,c,dpoultry (100%)—cow (90%)
Gendo Bacho181704 ± 763.2 ± 1.8 b,c,d2.2 ± 0.9 a,b,c,d,e100|06.1 ± 1 e,f,gmaize (100%)—teff (100%)—yam (83%)3.7 ± 1.2 a,bcow (100%)—poultry (89%)
Kebeles are sorted from highest to lowest mean altitude. The region and zone each kebele belongs to can be found in Figure 1. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05), according to the kebele or economic status. Standard deviations are provided. Livestock species included in the diversity assessment are cows, sheep, goats, poultry, donkeys, horses and mules.
Table
Table 2. Basic household characteristics across the 20 studied kebeles, including the number of family members, the percentage of households having an economic status categorized as poor, medium or rich, and the percentage of farm labour by family members or hired.
Table 2. Basic household characteristics across the 20 studied kebeles, including the number of family members, the percentage of households having an economic status categorized as poor, medium or rich, and the percentage of farm labour by family members or hired.
KebeleNumber of Family MembersEcon. Status
(Poor|Medium|Rich)		Labour
(Family|Hired)
Asoote4.4 ± 1.8 c,d35|65|052|48 a,b
Harro Molicha4.9 ± 1.4 b,c,d0|95|5100|0 f
Abera Gelede6 ± 1.3 a,b,c,d10|55|3571|29 b,c,d
Gomora Gaweda5.6 ± 1.9 a,b,c,d42|58|094|6 e,f
Harro Badamea6.1 ± 2.5 a,b,c20|80|095|5 e,f
Mari Ediget6.3 ± 1.7 a,b,c0|90|1078|22 c,d,e
Harmufo6.6 ± 1.2 a,b,c63|37|088|12 d,e,f
Anabelessa6.8 ± 1.7 a,b5|95|0100|0 f
Dish7.3 ± 3.2 a0|35|65100|0 f
Belle3.8 ± 2.1 d44|50|686|14 d,e,f
Layegnaw Gana6.9 ± 1.9 a,b5|81|14100|0 f
Wonjela6.2 ± 2 a,b,c0|100|094|6 e,f
Getema5.2 ± 1.6 a,b,c,d40|55|5100|0 f
Warka Sakaro7.3 ± 2.7 a0|95|559|41 a,b,c
Yedeb3.9 ± 2.2 c,d0|65|3551|49 a,b
Yedeb Endbra5.9 ± 1.8 a,b,c,d5|80|1595|5 e,f
Ermo5.9 ± 2.1 a,b,c,d0|69|31100|0 f
Harro Worab6.8 ± 1.4 a,b0|95|596|4 e,f
Aleme Korcha6.7 ± 1.9 a,b,c10|70|2043|57 a
Gendo Bacho3.8 ± 1 c,d0|56|44100|0 f
Kebeles are sorted from highest to lowest mean altitude. The region and zone each kebele belongs to can be found in Figure 1. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05), according to the kebele or economic status. Standard deviations are provided.
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of enset cultivation. The area of land allocated to the cultivation of enset and its percentage of the overall available cultivation area, number of enset plants presently on the farm, number of enset landraces cultivated, the dominant landraces (reported by >50% of the households), the percentage of households reporting intercropping within the enset crop, the maximum age of the enset plant during intercropping, and the different intercropping combinations. All characteristics are reported at the kebele level, and according to the economic status of the household across all kebeles.
Table 3. Characteristics of enset cultivation. The area of land allocated to the cultivation of enset and its percentage of the overall available cultivation area, number of enset plants presently on the farm, number of enset landraces cultivated, the dominant landraces (reported by >50% of the households), the percentage of households reporting intercropping within the enset crop, the maximum age of the enset plant during intercropping, and the different intercropping combinations. All characteristics are reported at the kebele level, and according to the economic status of the household across all kebeles.
KebeleEnset Cultivation
Land under Enset (ha)% of Overall Available Cultivation AreaNumber of Plants on the FarmNumber of Enset Landraces CultivatedDominant CultivarsIntercrop (%)Max Age Enset at IntercropIntercropping Combinations
Asoote0.1 ± 0.1 f14 f3067 ± 3480 a,b,c5.6 ± 1.3 c,d,eBoja (85%)802.2 ± 0.7 bspinach (88%), cabbage (6%), coffee (6%)
Harro Molicha0.7 ± 0.4 b,c,d50 a,b,c2322 ± 1180 a,b,c,d11.9 ± 1.2 aGenticho (100%)1001.0 ± 0 ccabbage + maize (77%), cabbage (14%), maize + coffee (9%)
Abera Gelede0.7 ± 0.4 b,c,d42 a,b,c,d,e4555 ± 4535 a6.2 ± 2.7 c,dGenticho (90%)5.31.0 b,ccabbage (100%)
Gomora Gaweda0.2 ± 0.1 e,f42 a,b,c,d,e237 ± 194 c,d7.3 ± 3.3 b,cSiskela (100%)6.2
Harro Badamea0.7 ± 0.5 b,c,d42 a,b,c,d,e1385 ± 1889 b,c,d7.4 ± 3.3 b,cGenticho (89%)0
Mari Ediget0.8 ± 0.4 b,c41 a,b,c,d,e,f1714 ± 1037 b,c,d8.1 ± 2.8 b,cShododiniya (60%)0
Harmufo0.6 ± 0.4 b,c,d,e61 a,b686 ± 947 c,d6.1 ± 1 c,dGenticho (100%)10.52.0 b,charicot bean (100%)
Anabelessa0.3 ± 0.1 d,e,f36 b,c,d,e,f577 ± 523 c,d6.2 ± 1.3 c,dGimbo (62%)42.91.5 ± 0 b,cmaize + pumpkin (89%), maize (11%)
Dish0.4 ± 0.2 c,d,e,f18 e,f2417 ± 2054 a,b,c,d6 ± 2.2 c,dNoboo (90%)1001.8 ± 0.4 b,ccoffee (48%), avocado + coffee (29%), avocado (24%)
Belle0.2 ± 0.1 e,f43 a,b,c,d,e101 ± 59 d3.1 ± 0.9 eAllanga (67%), Genna (50%)752.5 ± 0.7 a,bcabbage (100%)
Layegnaw Gana0.3 ± 0.1 d,e,f30 c,d,e,f1046 ± 486 b,c,d7.6 ± 2.4 b,cGimbo (89%)1002.2 ± 0.3 bmaize + pumpkin (71%), maize (19%), pumpkin (10%)
Wonjela0.2 ± 0.1 d,e,f34 b,c,d,e,f585 ± 165 c,d6.7 ± 1.1 c,dMarza (33%), Unjamo (27%), Gimbo (20%)1001.8 ± 0.5 b,cmaize (100%)
Getema0.5 ± 0.2 b,c,d,e,f61 a1933 ± 2150 b,c,d6.6 ± 2.4 c,dGenticho (79%)1001.0 ± 0 ccabbage + maize (52%), maize (33%), maize + coffee (10%), cabbage (5%)
Warka Sakaro1.5 ± 1.2 a47 a,b,c,d3414 ± 3404 a,b9.8 ± 3 a,bGenticho (100%)1001.8 ± 0.7 b,cmaize + coffee + haricot bean (33%), maize + coffee (22%), coffee (11%), coffee + haricot bean (11%), haricot bean (11%), maize (7%), maize + haricot bean (4%)
Yedeb0.6 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e29 c,d,e,f1719 ± 3140 b,c,d11.6 ± 3.7 aAmerat (41%), Bazera (18%)64.73.4 ± 1.7 acoffee (47%), maize (33%), cabbage (13%), fruit (7%)
Yedeb Endbra0.6 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e33 c,d,e,f1293 ± 673 b,c,d6 ± 1.8 c,dKinke (58%)353.7 ± 0.9 amaize (42%), khat (17%), khat + maize (17%), maize + coffee (17%), coffee (8%)
Ermo0.4 ± 0.3 b,c,d,e,f15 e,f865 ± 298 c,d5.5 ± 1.4 c,d,eBachoo (40%), Bajo (27%)1002.1 ± 0.3 bcoffee (100%)
Harro Worab0.6 ± 0.4 b,c,d,e31 c,d,e,f2634 ± 1987 a,b,c7.2 ± 1 cGenticho (100%)901.7 ± 0.3 b,ccoffee (100%)
Aleme Korcha1 ± 0.4 a,b46 a,b,c,d,e3131 ± 2589 a,b,c3.7 ± 1.7 d,eGenticho (100%)1001.5 ± 0 b,cmaize + coffee (78%), maize (22%)
Gendo Bacho0.5 ± 0.2 b,c,d,e,f25 d,e,f3437 ± 1763 a,b4.3 ± 1.3 d,eMaziya (44%), Gera (28%)0
Kebeles are sorted from highest to lowest mean altitude. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05), according to the kebele or economic status. Standard deviations are provided.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Blomme, G.; Kearsley, E.; Buta, S.; Chala, A.; Kebede, R.; Addis, T.; Yemataw, Z. Enset Production System Diversity across the Southern Ethiopian Highlands. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097066

AMA Style

Blomme G, Kearsley E, Buta S, Chala A, Kebede R, Addis T, Yemataw Z. Enset Production System Diversity across the Southern Ethiopian Highlands. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Blomme, Guy, Elizabeth Kearsley, Sisay Buta, Alemayehu Chala, Ruhama Kebede, Temesgen Addis, and Zerihun Yemataw. 2023. "Enset Production System Diversity across the Southern Ethiopian Highlands" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097066

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop